Commons:Deletion requests/File:Double Standard.gif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Double Standard.gif

[edit]

A sheer call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. This image is not used in any Wikimedia project. --Drork (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as it's not a valid reason for deletion even it it was true. We have been having this discussion many times earlier. Commons isn't censored et.c. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep It merely makes a political statement. This is an enciclopedia, not a seminar. We are uploading thousnds of Nazi propaganda files, from the German Archives, in these days. A bonanza for the historians, including those of the Holocaust, who will have first hand documentation. However, they are rather disturbing to read. Shall we delete them for this fact? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Political cartoon by notable artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Hardly a call for violence; this image makes a particular discernible political statement. Bastique demandez 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Art is art. Latuff is notable. Commons is not censored. Megapixie (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Absolutely not a call for violence, but against violence. Important historical, documentary and educational value. Potentially useful work by notable artist. Acceptable license. --5ko (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As I strongly object to these kind of sensationalist deletion requests. Suggesting this is a "call for lethal violence" is simply nonsense. Present a reasoning for deletion without such ludicrous comments and I might actually take a little more time to consider the request. Adambro (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How many cartoons do we need from one cartoonist? See Carlos Latuff. I don't know how we'd pick and choose, but this many cartoons seems over the top... Regards, Ben Aveling 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need a limit? Surely it is in the best interests of the projects we serve for our collection of these freely licensed artworks to be as comprehensive as possible. Adambro (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep People are only to trying to get this deleted because they don't like it. This is a work from a notable artist released under a free licence, clearly in COM:SCOPE. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment He's a prolific and skilled propagandist. If he was promoting, say, Coca Cola, there's no way we'd allow his work to be hosted here. It would be allowed on en.wikipedia, if and only if it had a 'legitimate use' in one or more articles.
      What this artist is selling is not a product, but violence against Israel, America and the West - his cartoons condone the deliberate killing of civilians, encourage the killing of soldiers, and encourage hatred of specific western nations and their leaders. It's the sort of stuff which could be useful as part of a balanced discussion, but I feel uncomfortable just treating it as any other picture. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket ban on hate-material. We already have a precedent for allowing restricted use of certain material on other wiki's. Perhaps this could be treated the same? That is: if it is used then we keep it; if it is unused, then we delete it? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) PS. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:IsraHellburningbuses.png and possibly others, which probably should be dealt with as a mass deletion request.[reply]
      •  Comment Some people don't seem to like that his cartoons criticize the killing of civilians. // Liftarn (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment Several of this cartoons, including this one, argue a moral equivalence between deliberately killing Israeli civilians and accidentally killing Palestinians civilians. (Accidental in the sense of not intended, not in the sense of not foreseeable.) And yes, I don't like that. Killing civilians is bad. Deliberately killing civilians is worse. But we don't delete pictures because they are morally questionable, or because we don't like them. We do it because they are out of scope. And at the moment, no-one appears to have any actual use for this picture. Normally, that wouldn't matter - someone someday might find a use for it, and having it here doesn't hurt anyone. But this isn't a normal picture - it says "if Israel accidentally kills one of our children, the correct response is to deliberately kill one of theirs." Mbz1 believes that having this image here encourages terrorism. I suspect he's wrong. But I'm not sure of it. Given that the picture isn't currently used, maybe the risk of encouraging terrorism outweighs the possibility that someone might find a use for it? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment Isn't the risk of slipping into a regime of censorship far worse than any hurt feelings here ? Ignore the political argument that the image presents (it's irrelevant). Ask yourself the question - for images inside scope - who is the right person should decide what is allowable ? The answer is of course the null-set. Every person brings some political bias or agenda to every decision (and anyone who thinks otherwise is laughable naive). There is no such thing as "limited" censorship. Megapixie (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Comment The concern isn't hurt feelings, the concern is that these cartoons encourage terrorism. Is that a concern we can completely ignore? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Commons should act here like news media, reporting without worrying about consequences. Consequence of this cartoon might also be that Israelis would learn something about an outside view, and maybe stop killing Palestinians. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • A responsible news agency will try to present a complete picture. That might include facts like: Palestinians deliberately target civilians, including children. Israelis try to avoid killing civilians, but they are certainly prepared to do things that are likely to kill civilians, and they have killed far more Palestinians than vice-versa. A responsible article might also explain that most Palestinian military infrastructure is built alongside civilian infrastructure - deliberately so, because otherwise the Israelis would destroy it. It might ask if being killed deliberately is worse than being killed accidentally. It might look at why Palestinian civilians are willing to be used as human shields. You can't cover that much ground in a single cartoon, and this one doesn't even try. It aims to create a moral equivalence between accidental killing in self-defence and deliberate murder, and to be honest. I don't see how this cartoon would be useful in presenting a balance picture. It might be useful as a topic for dissection, to discuss how careful selection of facts can persuade an audience. But at the moment, no-one is using it for that, or any other purpose. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Comment No, the issue is that some people feel that a cartoon may encourage terrorism. It's still a matter of feelings and political views. // Liftarn (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you saying that cartoons can't encourage terrorism? I'm prepared to be persuaded that the risk is outweighed by the benefits - that was in fact my starting position. But I'm surprised that you think that propaganda is powerless to influence people. Propaganda most certainly can induce all sorts of emotions, including hate. Just look how much we in the West create to persuade ourselves to hate the enemy de'jour. I'm not of the opinion that we should ban all hate-propaganda from commons, certainly not. But I do believe it is potentially dangerous, and I don't think that we can treat it just as any other picture. This is no great departure from what we already do: we don't allow child pornography, we only allow limited quantities of erotica. We are very careful about images of private people, especially images that contain personal details such as address or other identifying material. We wouldn't publish floor plans to the whitehouse, for example. There are pictures that are not harmless in the effect they have on people. I believe this is one such picture. If we have a reason to have it, that is one thing. Absent any actual use for the picture, absent any context for the picture that would give the viewer a more complete and balanced view, I'm not comfortable. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If they would be available under a free license we certainly would publish floorplans of the White House (preferably in SVG format). We do have pictures of the White House. But please explain why do you think this image is so dangerous? // Liftarn (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. I started neutral, but the more I've considered the risks of keeping this picture (small but real) and the benefits (even smaller), the more persuaded I am that until we have a use for this picture, we should not have it. Most libraries have a restricted section. If they had an image like this, that is where they would put it. Absent any such mechanism, I don't see a benefit in keeping this picture. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't we keep it? We don't self-censor, so we don't need a mechanism to hide certain things away in the back room. Since we don't need that sort of mechanism, not having one isn't a reason to delete the image.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction. We do self censor - but only on very limited grounds. I'm suggesting that unless someone has a real use for this image then we should consider it to be out of scope. Most images, we give the benefit of the doubt - even if it they aren't obviously useful, well, maybe someone will find a use for them, and there's not usually any harm in keeping an unused image. But this image is potentially harmful, it is not used, it does not appear likely to be about to be used, and it can always be undeleted or recreated if someone does have a legitimate use for it. Yes, censorship is bad. But encouraging terrorism is also bad. I don't believe we should be a repository for every image this guy has created. The most important ones, yes. Any image that can be used to illustrate an article, or as part of a book somewhere, yes. But not every image, not just in case it is useful. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you bring up "encouraging terrorism"? That is an obvious straw man argument that in any case is irrelevant for this discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular cartoon encourages terrorism by portraying the (deliberate) killing of Israeli children on a bus as being the moral equivalent of (accidentally) killing Palestinian children. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you about what it depicts, however that isn't "encouraging terrorism". However, it's irrelevant since Commons isn't censored. I'd put the image into use right now, but that might be considered POINTy. Whether it's actually used or not is also irrelevant - the test is whether it could reasonably be used in an educational or illustrative manner. It very clearly can be.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go on. How could this image be used in an educational or illustrative manner? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained exactly how this image in in scope on another of these deletion requests, please see my comments there. Adambro (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, you're saying that the only use for this work that you can see is to illustrate an article about the artist? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can also be used to illustrate double standards (that is after all what the cartoon is about), propaganda et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really believe there is no difference between accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone? Because that is the claim the cartoon makes. If you accept that, then I guess you would accept that the are Israelis of guilty of double standards when they say that deliberately killing children is worse than accidentally doing so. Otherwise, the only double standard on display is the author's. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's irrelevant. Whether we accept the cartoon's claims or not (and I would dispute your interpretation) is immaterial to whether it has educational value. For example, one could use it to illustrate "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing" or whatever words you would like to use. Think beyond the Wikipedia project please - there are plenty of legitimate uses for this - whether you like the image itself or not.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Ben Aveling's comment, I'm most certainly not saying that the only use is to illustrate an article about the artist. What I'm saying is, despite your suggestions that this doesn't have any value, it is quite straightforward to consider a potential use for this image in an educational context. This seems to contradict your suggestion that this image is out of scope since it easily passes the requirement to have an educational value. Beyond that there may be other uses as Liftarn notes. I'd therefore question whether there is any policy basis for you opposition to hosting this image, especially when the policy that we don't engage in censorship is considered. Adambro (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It has no educational value. I suppose it could be used for anti-semitism in Brazil, but I can't see anyone rushing to write that article. There are better cartoons than this one for every purpose identified so far (article about the author, article about double standards). Is there a real article that would benefit from this cartoon? Because I can't imagine one. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've previously said, the implication of your suggestions that this is one of Latuff's more controversial works makes it more educationally valuable because it is more likely to be discussed in articles about Latuff or similar topics. I'd disagree with your suggestion about 'Anti-semitism in Brazil' because there is no automatic link between being critical of Israel and being anti-semitic, even with if it is a Jewish state. Making such a link just seems to be a convenient way to try to dismiss any criticism of that country by branding anyone who voices such an opinion as anti-semitic. I'm afraid ultimately that your basis for supporting the deletion seems to be merely "I don't like it" and as such it is unlikely to convince anyone to disregard the core Commons principle of being not censored for yours, or anyone else's benefit. Adambro (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  KeepThe Commons hosts many political and satirical images. Some of these are grossly racist. This image is not, but then if I was busily carrying out murder I suppose I might get a bit annoyed if someone shone a light on what I was doing. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Agree with everything BenAveling said--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to sum up. We cannot agree what this cartoon means. No-one can suggest any use for it, which puts it out of scope: "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose".
    When I go through the comments made in favour of keeping this I find the following:
    • "Commons isn't censored" - Liftarn, Megapixie, Simonxag, G.Dallorto. That is an effective counter argument for the claim that this is anti-semetic, pro-terrorist propaganda. But it doesn't make the picture actually useful.
    • "notable artist" - Kuiper, Megapixie. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly not so notable that everything he does is automatically useful.
    • "makes a particular discernible political statement","a call ... against violence" - Bastique. The above discussion suggests that the meaning of the statement is far from discernible. Either way, it doesn't make the picture useful.
    • "people don't like it". Multichill. True, but people not liking something doesn't make it more useful.
    • "Potentially useful", 5ko. This is the only argument that carries weight. But no-one can suggest what it might be potentially useful for. If they can, I'll withdraw my vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC). PS. Apologies if I've misspelt anyone's name.[reply]
     Comment Despite your assertion that "No-one can suggest any use for it", suggestions have been made, it is just that you don't agree with them. The simple fact that numerous language Wikipedia's consider this artist to be notable enough to merit an article means that any of his artwork is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". As I have now said on a number of occasions, if this is one of his more controversial works as you imply, then this makes it only more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" because it is more likely to be discussed in an article about Latuff's works where including the illustration that is being discussed is beneficial to our readers. I do however, welcome your focus on whether or not this image is in scope, rather than whether or not it "encourages terrorism" etc. which seems much more dependent on your own opinions than based upon Commons policies. Now that your suggestion that it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose" has been disputed, the onus is on you to explain why this is the case. Adambro (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested uses: "to illustrate an article about the artist", "to illustrate double standards", "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing". (I am not making this up.) Any image could be used to illustrate an article about the author, should we wish to create one. By the first argument, we'd never delete anything. Yet we do. Using it for the second article might be problematic since the meaning of the cartoon depends on context that isn't made clear to the casual reader. You'd need so many words to explain that, it would be better just to skip it and write about the topic instead. I don't think the third suggestion was intended to be taken seriously. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The important thing to note though is that we don't need to identify potential uses for this image, simply conclude that it is "realistically useful for an educational purpose", the suggestions have been provided in response to your demands and your apparent lack of understanding of the potential uses for this image. It seems obvious that the consensus is that this image should be kept, presumably based upon the opinion that it is in scope and is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and so I would suggest the onus is on you to demonstrate to the community why this image isn't within scope if you wish for it to be deleted. It doesn't seem that you've really addressed this fundamental issue. Why is it not "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? You seem to be one of a few lone voices which are continuously asserting that it isn't in scope without providing any compelling argument as to why not. Adambro (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful for a purpose that no-one can identify? That's a bit sad. Commons is not a random collection of every free artwork on the internet. If one can't say how something is educational and can't say for what purpose it can be used, then it's not something that can be used for an educational purpose, at least, not without help. And lucky day for you, I can help. While I suspect that "those lunatic people who think accidentally killing someone and deliberately killing someone are the same thing" was intended either as a joke or as an insult, we do have an article on it, though not by that name. The article is 'Moral relativism' and if you can find a good way to work this cartoon into it, I'll happily strike my vote. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand. I've not said we can't identify a realistic use of this image, I have in fact suggested such a use, rather that it isn't really what we have to do in order to demonstrate it is in scope and so meets the requirement that the image must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". It is for you to demonstrate this requirement isn't met since you want this to be deleted and it would appear so far that your attempts to do so have been so far unsuccesful judging by the clear consensus to keep this and the other Latuff images. I'm not going to try to manipulate this issue by adding the image to an article so that it is used although your suggestion that you think it would be possible to use it in the Moral relativism article seems to contradict your statements that it is out of scope because it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I'm afraid that none of us have a crystal ball which we can stare into to tell you where this image could be used and nor do we need to. Adambro (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I come across new information, I am prepared to change my mind. Originally, like you, I could not imagine an educational purpose for which this image would be realistically useful. Having thought the matter over, it occurs to me that there might be one. Demonstrating through example that there is indeed a good use for this image would not be manipulative - it would be effective, if it could be done. It is not a matter of my disliking this image, or of your liking it. The purpose of commons to collect images that have a use. Images that are "realistically useful for an educational purpose", as you keep pointing out. If there is no use for this image then it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Regards, Ben Aveling 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hi, Adambro.Could you please be kind enough to explain to me how such one sided caricatures could be "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? The clue here is the word "realistically" . I just looked this word up in the dictionary. It says: "realistic - Expressed or represented as being accurate". So the question is how accurate caricatures of mr. latuff are? I agree that to show mr. latuff controversy Commons should have some of his caricatures, the question is how many. About him being a "notable artist".I just found his account on Flickr. I kind of doubt that a notable artists of any time will use Flickr to promote their images. I also found this quote by mr. latuff: "Once saved to your computer, share it with people. Upload it on different servers, make it available on websites and file sharing clients, save it to CD, make copies and distribute. Make these cartoons to reach people with no access to Internet.", which to me is a clear indication that he himself wants his work to be used only as propaganda. (I hope you find my comment enough polite. If no, may I please ask you to point me out my mistakes?)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mbz1, you seem to confuse educational value with tastefulness. Just because you consider these images to be distasteful, it doesn't mean they have no educational value. Just like images of Muhammed or nude images, many object about them but we use them on Wikipedia because it benefits our readers. I think you might be slightly confused about the meaning of "realistically useful for an educational purpose", "realistic" doesn't directly relate to "accuracy". For example, File:Mona Lisa.jpg might not be an completely accurate representation of its subject but this doesn't impact on whether it is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". This phrase refers to the possibility that an image will be used for an educational purpose, to illustrate an article on Wikipedia for example. "realistically useful" simply means that there is a reasonable possibility that the image can be used in such a way. I feel that this image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" for illustrating Latuff's work in Wikipedia articles for example, whether the appropriate Wikipedia communities choose to use this image or another is up to them and we shouldn't try to decide this for them, instead serving them as per the scope of the project in providing a repository of freely licensed content which is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I'm not sure of the relevance of Latuff having an account on Flickr, this certainly isn't of any concern in assessing an individual's notability on the English Wikipedia and I suspect this is the same on other projects. The motivations of Latuff in making these works available are also not particularly relevant to this discussion in my view. Unsurprisingly, he uses art as a means of expressing his opinions but that seems to be a common theme in art. Adambro (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adambro, thank you for taking your time to respond! May I please ask you few more questions? You said: "As I have now said on a number of occasions, if this is one of his more controversial works as you imply, then this makes it only more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" ". My question is how many more controversial works of latuff Commons should host to make his work "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I believe that for most Commons readers seeing 4-5 of latuff caricatures are more than enough to get educated on his controversy, and IMO there is absolutely nothing else to be educated about.
    I would like to add that I have promised to a Person, who I respect very much that I will not take a part in any discussions any more. I've broken my promise, and I'm sorry about this. The thing is that I felt obligated to show my support to Ben Aveling, who got involved into this mess because of me. From now on, I am not going to comment on any hate propaganda images against the state of Israel not because I'm afraid to get blocked or even get death threats from very "fair minded" jihadists. I believe that the more I'm talking about mr. latuff caricatures, the more attention they get, and surely it is not my goal. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just briefly then, to respond to your comment as to "how many more controversial works of latuff Commons should host", we should host as many works by notable artists as we can obtain under a free licence since Commons isn't censored and they are likely to be "useful for an educational purpose". We aren't primarily serving Commons readers, we're serving the various Wikimedia projects. All of which have differing requirements for images but who all benefit from us having as comprehensive a repository of images which are freely licensed and "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as possible. Adambro (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are a few Ku Klux Klan supporters who would love to release their anti-African-American caricatures under free license and upload them here. Can they consider your statement above as an invitation to do so? Would you be the one who would answer the loads of rightfully angry emails? Because you know, African Americans are more diligent than Jewish people, and they will send emails. BTW, if someone here ever calls me "a bloody Jew", is it okay to erase his words, or would that be considered censorship? Drork (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the content falls within our scope and as such is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" then it should of course be hosted here just like any other material which some may find offensive because of the core principle that Commons isn't censored. We're certainly not here to provide an outlet for controversial artists but that doesn't mean we disregard the Commons scope in an effort to eradicate what we don't like but is useful to those projects we serve. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, we already get masses of emails from individuals who object to content hosted across the various Wikimedia Foundation projects and there was an online petition organised to protest against Wikipedia's inclusion of images of Muhammed. None of this changes anything though and nor should it. A minority, however vocal, shouldn't dictate what the majority can see simply for their own benefit. Whether I would be the one to answer "the loads of rightfully angry emails" is an interesting question. As an OTRS volunteer I do get to see such emails but I'm afraid they receive little response, beyond perhaps highlighting our core policy of not censoring ourselves for the benefit of particular groups. Adambro (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this example of the images of Muhammad, so let me remind you that these images are by no means offensive. In fact, they were created in the Middle Ages by Muslim believers for religious use. Back then, depicting Muhammad in an image wasn't considered problematic under Islamic law, and these images are a wonderful example to the changes in Islamic law over the years. Even so, Muslims who feel offended sent loads of emails asking to remove these images. I wonder what the reactions would be if real offensive images were uploaded. Beside false claims as if removing the offensive caricatures were censorship (deletion doesn't equal censorship, it depends what you delete and under which circumstances), I didn't hear one good reason about why these caricatures should stay. Most of them are not used in any project, and no one here suggested any illustrative or educational value for them, except maybe showing how modern antisemitism works (but then again, people rejected categorizing the images as antisemitic drawings). There are people here who keep saying that the caricaturist in question is a notable one - the article about him on en-wp is one of the shortest, it says his entire work is political and about one subject: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did win a prize once - the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. Notable indeed. This prize probably made him so notable that a huge collection of his "art" was uploaded onto the Commons. Drork (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting how you state that the images of Muhammed aren't offensive, the flood of emails and the petition would suggest a fair few people would disagree. The implication seems to be that that controversy is without merit yet this one suddenly is simply because you say so. I would certainly agree however with your statement that "deletion doesn't equal censorship, it depends what you delete and under which circumstances". The calls of censorship when an article on a non-notable web comic gets deleted from Wikipedia for example are clearly nonsensical. However, what seems to be proposed here in deleting these images seems very much like censorship to me. The motivation to remove them is simply based upon an opinion that these images might be offensive to a particular group. This, despite them being "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as is reasonable based upon the number of articles that Wikipedia have about Latuff. The good reason for keeping these images which you apparently haven't heard is that there are in scope. Your analysis of the level of Latuff's notability isn't really relevant. This is for each of the WMF projects which we serve to discuss, it is our duty to provide them with a repository of freely licensed content relevant to their work and we should continue to do so even where individuals find those media files offensive. Adambro (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several Wikipedias have articles about that South American caricaturists. They usually use one or two of his caricatures to illustrate what he does. That's it. Most caricatures that were uploaded here are of no use to any of Wikimedia projects. They show no historical event, they are not helpful to learn geography or physics, they are only helpful to learn about one South American person's views, and as a tool of propaganda against Israelis and Jews. This caricaturist became notable having won a competition in Iran for producing caricatures that mock the Holocaust. The Commons don't have similar caricatures targeted against other groups, unless having a specific historical or documentary value, like caricatures which were actually used by racist regimes or hoisted in racist demonstrations. You claim that I am relying on my own opinions, but as I said above, I am talking facts here. The depiction of Muhammad in some medieval drawings is NOT offensive, because they were made by Muslim believers in order to be used as illustrations in Muslim religious books. Many Muslims regard these images as problematic, but they cannot be said to be offensive. The caricatures we are talking about here were created in order to spread hatred, and the Commons is merely another tool at the hands of this caricaturist's supporters to spread hatred against Jews and Israelis. Do you really want to cooperate with them? Do you really want to open the Commons' doors for other people who want to promote hatred propaganda against African-Americans, Gay people, Asians? Drork (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be going around in circles now. You've again stated that "The depiction of Muhammad in some medieval drawings is NOT offensive" as if your opinion that this is the case is unquestionable. This seems somewhat peculiar considering the massive reaction to the use of such images on Wikipedia from Muslims. According to Wiktionary, offensive can be described as "Causing offense; arousing a visceral reaction of disgust, anger, or hatred". On this basis, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that a number of Muslims have found the images of Muhammed offensive, even if, as you suggest, "they were made by Muslim believers in order to be used as illustrations in Muslim religious books" and so the reaction is unexpected. I would therefore reitterate my "claim" that the basis of your argument for deletion is simply your opinions about what the images portray rather than Commons policies. You state that Latuff "became notable having won a competition in Iran for producing caricatures that mock the Holocaust". So? He isn't less notable from a Wikipedia perspective just because he mocks genocide, something which many people will find very inappropriate, so it really isn't clear why you make this statement unless it is your opinion that this makes him less notable.
You go on to say that these images "were created in order to spread hatred". I would suggest that the creator's motivation in creating these is irrelevant as to whether they fall within scope and are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I appreciate your point that the creator might make these available under a free license in order for them to be more easily disseminated but again, whilst we of course wish to avoid being an outlet for their work, if the media file is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" then this also has no impact on whether we keep it. Considering these images to be in scope and so suggesting that they should be kept is in no way endorsing their message, it is merely recognising that they are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". It most certainly shouldn't be considered that any opposition of this or any other deletion is because what is being portrayed is agreed with. I don't wish for Commons to be a soapbox for "other people who want to promote hatred propaganda" but I do want to ensure that it is a comprehensive repository of content which is realistically useful for an educational purpose by our sister projects even if unfortunately that is sometimes a consequence.
Text at the top of this page states that "This page is 39 kilobytes long. Some older browsers may have trouble editing pages longer than 32 kilobytes." Perhaps this is a subtle warning that we've being discussing this for too long without any real progress. It seems unlikely that either of us are going to reconsider our position about this deletion and the clear consensus doesn't seem to have changed. I'll therfore, whilst appreciating the pleasent and civilisised way in which we've been able to discuss this, probably not engage too much in further discussions. Regards Adambro (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Don't take my word about the depictions of Muhammad, and don't believe a flood of e-mails either - just ask any educated religious Muslim, and you'll get the same answer I've got. (2) So far I haven't heard one single suggestion how these caricatures can be used in an educational way. Of course you can use them to demonstrate the work of caricaturist, but for that you don't need this huge gallery of highly problematic images. You might use them to demonstrate that antisemitism still exist, but then you'd better categorize the images correctly under "Category:Antisemitism". I am not at all comforted by the fact that by being here these images are suggested to have an educational value. That is exactly the problem here. Drork (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, to briefly respond to your first point, not being educated means someone can't be offended by something does it? I'm certainly not saying Muslims being offended by the images is rational but clearly they are offended by them and saying they're wrong for having this reaction is unlikely to defuse the situation. Moving to your second point, as I've said previously, this image is considered by both myself and others to be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". The most immediately obvious use is to illustate a discussion about this work or the works by Latuff in general but there are likely other possiblities also. You seem to imply that this is one of his more controversial works. Again I will reiterate that this only makes it more "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and therefore in scope. Your suggestion that this image could be categorised as antisemitism is somewhat debatable. This would seem to fall within New antisemitism since it doesn't appear to be an attack on Jews rather merely a criticism of Israel and those two things are very different. Whilst I would accept that Israel as a Jewish state is likely to be a focus for antisemitism, this doesn't mean that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic, suggesting that would seem to me to just be an easy way of trying to discredit any critical voices of Israel. It is a shame that you are "not at all comforted by the fact that by being here these images are suggested to have an educational value" but again Commons isn't censored for the benefit of you or any other group of individuals. Adambro (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not being post-modernist and for talking about facts and not about speculations. It is not an opinion. I know, and you will know if you are willing to inquire, that the depictions of Muhammad are not offensive. If someone wants to be offended by them - I can't help it. On the other hand, the drawings of that South American caricaturist are meant to be offensive. That's their sole purpose. Furthermore, the depictions of Muhammad don't put any Muslim in danger. The drawing of that South American caricaturist are very likely to incite people to violence against Israelis and Jews. Perhaps living in North America or Western Europe makes this sound strange, but in the Middle East you don't need much to incite people. Adding to all that the lack of educational value, and you can come to right conclusion yourself. Drork (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - by saying that the educational purpose of this image is demonstrating the work of the guy who draw it, you actually say that any image can be uploaded to the Commons. Any image can be used to demonstrate the work of the guy who has drawn it. By saying that deletion means censorship you are actually saying that the Commons have no scope. I hope you can see the contradictions in your argument, and how desperately you are trying to find arguments to protect these images. Drork (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you think the cartoons were made to be offensive and that you think that they in some mysterious way you have never bothered to explain are dangerous is still not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Playing innocent doesn't make your argements any stronger, Liftarn. Drork (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drok, as you note, "Any image can be used to demonstrate the work of the guy who has drawn it" but of course this doesn't mean that the work is within scope. The crucial additional requirement that I have already mentioned but you seem to have neglected to take into account is that numerous WMF projects consider this individual to be notable. I've not said deletion means censorship, I've said that the basis for this deletion is a desire for censorship, you don't like the image and that's it. Your suggestion that it isn't in scope, isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose", has little merit and is just an attempt to give some credit to this deletion request. I am certainly trying to protect these images although hardly "desperately" since hardly anyone supports the deletion so it is likely to not succeed. Not because I agree with what they potray, as I feel you might be suggesting, but because I consider them to be in scope and so deleting them wouldn't be in the interests of the projects we serve. Whether the images by Latuff are meant to be offensive or not is completely irrelevant to whether they are in scope or not. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the Commons, this South American caricaturist is the most notable artist in the world. The only reason why so many of his works are on the Commons is because he releases his works under CC license, and because some of his adherents are here. No one gave me another reason so far. Some Wikipedias have articles about him, but they used one or two of his drawings at the most. If these are the criteria for uploading an image to the Commons, then practically the Commons have no scope, anything goes. BTW, why is pornography off limit? Isn't it because pornographic material is meant to be over-provocative and is considered offensive? Drork (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that more artists don't make their work available under free licenses. However, just because that is the case it doesn't provide a reason to delete large collections of images of work by those who do. There being an imbalance doesn't justify a deletion. You also state that another reason why we have these images is because "some of his adherents are here" but I'd warn you not to fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who opposes the deletion of these images is a fan of Latuff's work as I fear you may have done. Regarding your last point, my understanding is that images that could be described as pornographic are certainly not off limits. Numerous examples exist because, despite them being considered by some to be offensive, they are in scope, just like these images. Adambro (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I'll get spam I'll tell them the Commons is the place they are looking for. Drork (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that it is you that is getting desperate rather than me. Adambro (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It represents truth. Nothing else.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Double_Standard.gif&oldid=418396053"